Question 45. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge in the Green Belt?

Very bad. Should not be considered at all.

This would need to be highly justified through the absence of adequate alternatives – on sustainability grounds.

Large scale urban extensions have proved to be a positive way to provide new housing supported by public transport eg in Germany. If this means building on the Green Belt then an equivalent area of land should be added to the Green Belt further out from Cambridge so there is no overall change in the amount of Green Belt land.

Absolutely disgusted that it's even been considered. Leave the greenbelt alone, you will delete it permanently, causing irreparable damage.

Providing exceptional circumstances can be proven and all reasonable alternatives are considered it would have to be an option.

Sites should be examined with regard to their sustainability and impact on the character and biodiversity of the area. Whether the site is inside or outside the Green Belt should be a secondary factor.

Totally unacceptable.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Weight should also be given to sites in the Green Belt which are adjacent to railway stations which will facilitate sustainable travel to longer-distance locations (e.g. London) and where those stations are the subject of upgrades or capacity enhancements. Likewise, such weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Whittlesford and Whittlesford Bridge (which has been promoted by our client through the call for sites process in March 2019) which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for significant additional growth.

The land promoted by our client (“Land at Maarnford Farm, Hunts Road, Duxford) is a good case in point. Such development is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Weight should also be given to sites in the Green Belt which are near railway stations which will facilitate sustainable travel to longer-distance locations (e.g. London) and where those stations are the subject of upgrades or capacity enhancements. Likewise, such weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car.

1) Fen Ditton has experienced a degree of organic growth in jobs and housing within the main area of settlement over recent decades. We believe this is sustainable in contrast to a major development on the Green Belt. 2) FDPC has nevertheless responded positively, with some reservations, to previous proposals to develop brownfield and some Green Belt land north of the Newmarket Road in the context of the Cambridge East development and the earlier expansion of housing beyond the City cemetery. 3) FDPC believes the Green Belt has delivered significant benefits in accordance with its original aims. We object to policies that undermine its function and continuation. We suggest that the recent trends for new buildings in the City to be taller may be a sustainable consequence to the prevention of urban sprawl on the Green Belt.

There needs to be a review of the Green Belt but not just restricted to its inner edge. Careful attention should be given to sites on the edge of the villages within or adjacent to the Green Belt and how such sites score against the aims and purpose of the Green Belt. Sustainable sites, such as the land off Comberton Road, Toft on the edge of villages may offer little to the Green Belt and their release for development ought to be fully considered when we are seeking to ensure that sustainable development, which meets the need of the current generation without negatively impact the needs of future generations, along with the long term viability and vitality of the existing settlements is considered.

I object to developing the green belt land around the edge of Cambridge. There is already insufficient leisure and recreational space for the residents of Cambridge. Developing the green belt land would only make this worse. Instead more of the green belt should be turned into publically accessible space by connecting up existing sites such as Gog Magog Down, Wandelbury, Milton Country Park, Coton reserve etc.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Likewise, weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Histon which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for significant additional growth.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Likewise, weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Sawston which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for significant additional growth.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Likewise, weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Sawston which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for significant additional growth.

I think you should build higher buildings near to sustainable transport- eg Like at Cambridge North. If you need .to build on green belt then leave green corridors like spokes going to the centre of the city where people can walk and cycle and there are habitats for wildlife. There must be no reliance on cars when you build new developments. The buildings should be made of timber and should be carbon neutral like in Eddington

No Building in the greenbelt. The green belt is a buffer to urban sprawl and should not be built on.

It is clear that if the growth aspirations of the Local Plan are to be realised Green Belt releases will be needed, particularly those settlements on public transport corridors.

It is clear that if the growth aspirations of the Local Plan are to be realised Green Belt releases will be needed, particularly those settlements on public transport corridors.

Strongly agree. As set out in the response to Question 39 national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process, and that exceptional circumstances exist to release land which is related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. The experience of new settlements and the redevelopment of previously developed land on the edge of Cambridge demonstrates that these options do not deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and in the case of new settlements these types of development typically have much longer lead-in times than originally predicted. Therefore, releasing land from the Green Belt on the edge of Cambridge, including at land off Limekiln Road, is a realistic option. It is considered that in reality the development strategy will be based on a combination of spatial distribution options. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land off Limekiln Road in Cambridge are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable; it is predicted that it would take approximately one year for development to be completed at the site once construction has started. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, Cherry Hinton is very accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. The promoted development is accessible to Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Peterhouse Technology Park and to Cambridge, and all of the services and facilities in Cherry Hinton and Queen Edith’s. As set out in the call for sites submission, there are no significant constraints to development at land off Limekiln Road in Cambridge. The site makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt, and could be released to meet the needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The promoted development would include additional landscaping to enhance the setting of the site. Cherry Hinton and the promoted site are suitable locations for additional development.

Strongly agree. It should be noted that some villages, including Great Shelford, are also located in the Green Belt and are on transport corridors, and as such development options that include these locations are also supported; the response to this question is also relevant to Questions 47 and 48. As set out in the response to Question 39 national guidance allows the release of land from the Green Belt through the plan-making process, and that exceptional circumstances exist to release land which is related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. The experience of new settlements and the redevelopment of previously developed land on the edge of Cambridge demonstrates that these options do not deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and in the case of new settlements these types of development typically have much longer lead-in times than originally predicted. Therefore, releasing land from the Green Belt on the edge of Cambridge, including at Great Shelford, is a realistic option. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas and acknowledges that housing can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. The promoted development at land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford would support the existing good range of services and facilities available in the village and nearby Trumpington. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF acknowledges the role that small and medium sized sites can make towards meeting the housing requirements, and that such sites are often built-out relatively quickly. Small and medium sized sites typically only require limited new physical infrastructure and amendments to the access arrangements. The housing monitoring data from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire confirms that small and medium sites are delivered quickly i.e. within two to three years. It is considered that small and medium sized sites make a significant contribution towards the short term housing land supply and the five year housing land supply position in Greater Cambridge. Therefore, it is requested that small/medium sized sites such as land off Cabbage Moor are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable; it is predicted that it would take approximately two years for development to be completed at the site once construction has started. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As set out in the response to Qu.37, Great Shelford is very accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. It is well-related to existing and proposed public transport services in Trumpington including the Park and Ride, Guided Busway and proposed Cambridge South Station. The promoted development is well-related to the services and facilities in Great Shelford and Trumpington by sustainable modes of transport. As set out in the call for sites submission, there are no significant constraints to development at land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford. The site makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt, and could be released to meet the needs for housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. The existing uses at the site and neighbouring uses means that it does not contribute towards the wider landscape of Cambridge and Great Shelford, and the promoted development would include additional landscaping to enhance the setting of the site. Great Shelford is a suitable village for additional development.

See College’s answer to Q 39.

Very Supportive.

This would need to be justified through the absence of adequate alternatives – on sustainability grounds. Sustainable sites around villages should be considered first i.e. Great Abington.

This makes sense in terms of sustainability and meeting climate change objectives if there is frequent reliable public transport on the doorstep. However, if land is taken from the Green Belt, an equivalent area should be designated as Green Belt further out from Cambridge so the Green Belt is not reduced or lost altogether.

It is clear that if the growth aspirations of the Local Plan are to be realised Green Belt releases will be needed, particularly those settlements on public transport corridors.

Paragraph 136 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether to review Green Belt boundaries through the emerging GCLP. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. Paragraph 137 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. Paragraph 138 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. The sites that Cambridgeshire County Council have promoted include a number of sites around the Biomedical Campus, adjacent to Babraham Park and Ride, the Trumpington Park and Ride site, and along Newmarket Road, all of which are well-served by existing public transport routes. These links are set to further strengthen: the Biomedical Campus sites are close to the proposed Cambridge South station and CAM route; the Newmarket Road sites align with the proposed eastern CAM route. Their allocation would also allow for the expansion of areas of strong economic activity, supporting further agglomeration effects. The Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership has consulted on the relocation of the Trumpington Park and Ride site and it is understood that plans for the relocation are emerging. The County Council has been liaising with GCP and are aware of the plans. Accordingly, allocation of carefully selected sites on the edge of Cambridge within the Green Belt would allow for a sustainable pattern of development and support the economic growth of key economic sectors, in line with NPPF policy.

This would need to be highly justified through the absence of adequate alternatives – on sustainability grounds of those sites which are located on or adjacent to public transport routes.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Likewise, weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Fulbourn which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for significant additional growth.

This is appropriate, if such villages contain a good level of local facilities/services, are sustainable, well-connected and accessible by public transport modes. Likewise, weight should be given to those sites where employment opportunities already exist, are easily accessible and which do not rely on access by the private car. Such is the case at Stow-cum-Quy which meets all these criteria and which is an obvious location for additional growth. The Council should not automatically assume that development in the Green Belt is not ‘appropriate’. Whilst a new Local Plan is the formal process to allocate Green Belt for development, where appropriate, there are many Green Belt locations which contribute little to the openness of the wider area. The Council should also be mindful that, where any development is adjacent to the Green Belt, it can include appropriate landscaping or public open space on land bounding that designation. Therefore, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and wider countryside can be mitigated by appropriate design and layout.